Tapping our irreducible individuality in bhakti-yoga

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
Today I am speaking on the topic of tapping our irreducible individuality in Bhakti Yoga. So, irreducible individuality, all of us are individuals, and that is how we eternally are. Our individuality is not reduced by our spiritual advancement.
The impersonalists have the idea that as we become more and more spiritually advanced, then we move towards a homogeneous oneness. And in that homogeneous oneness, all diversity is removed, and then one comes towards a state of unity. So I was trying to recite a verse in the 11th canto of the Bhagavatam, where 11.20.26 says, this is chapter and title, Pure Emotional Service, Supersedes Knowledge and Attachment.
So even if you don’t have that verse, it’s okay, I’ll just repeat it. You can write it down after me. सम्गानां त्याजनेच्छया So here, the central point is, सिस्वे दिकारे यानिष्ठा that according to one’s level of spiritual advancement, one should practise the rules and regulations.
सिस्वे दिकारे यानिष्ठा So निष्ठा refers to faith or level. In the second chapter also, Krishna refers to निष्ठा in the sense of level. लोकेस्मिन्प्रिविथा निष्ठा भूनां प्रोक्तामयालधा So he says, ज्यानयोगेन सांथानां कर्मयोगेन योगिनां So he says that there are two levels, and I have spoken about these two levels, the level of the ज्यानयोगी’s and the level of the भक्तियोगी’s.
So ज्यानयोगेन सांथानां and कर्मयोगेन योगिनां So when he talks about these two levels, then he is called निष्ठा So निष्ठा, at one level, refers to faith, but our faith also refers to our level of consciousness. So the main point of this verse is, स्वेस्वेदिकारेया निष्ठा संधान्परितिया That one should do one’s duties according to one’s level, and when one acts according to one’s level, that is virtuous. And in this section, Vishal has used the example of how there can be different definitions of success for people at different levels of spiritual advancement.
At different वर्णाs and different आश्टमाs. So he says, for a सन्यासी to approach a woman in a secluded place is a तोष्ट, but for a गरहस्त, when he is married and expected to get children. Actually, it’s a duty, a dynastic duty.
There are duties towards the devatas, there are duties towards the pitras, there are duties towards the rishis. So the duty towards the dynasty, towards the pitras, is to be approaching. And so the appropriate time to not approach one’s wife, who is this divided wife, that is a dosha.
So what will be a guna and what will be a dosha will vary according to the deshakal. And we see this contrast again also in another level. In the Ramayana, when Dashrath Maharaj receives Vishwamitra Muni.
So at that time, Vishwamitra is a renunciate. And for a renunciate, he asks, what is the question he asks? How are you conquering over the earth? And that is the question for a renunciate. But similarly, there is a meeting between a renunciate and a householder in the Mahabharata.
Narad Muni, just before the arrangements, before the plan for the Rajashtri Sacrifice, Narad Muni comes to meet Yudhishthira. So at that time, Yudhishthira and Narad Muni have a discussion. So Narad Muni asks, are you doing your dharma well? So then Yudhishthira asks, please tell me what is my proper duty? And then he says that in a householder life, there are three duties.
That is dharma, artha and karma. So he says, a householder, a person, actually this is not in the words which I have put, a person basically, most people will be householders. So he says, a person should not give up dharma for the sake of artha or karma.
Nor should one give up artha for the sake of dharma and karma. Nor should one give up karma for the sake of dharma and karma. And again he says, this person, only dharma, giving up artha and karma, that is not desirable.
Giving up, a person only artha, giving up dharma and karma, that is also not desirable. And especially most dangerous is, a person only karma, giving up dharma and artha. So all these are undesirable.
So proper life means one balances dharma, artha and karma. And that, so even for a householder, the ultimate definition, householders also like to conquer worldly wealth. But that is not the immediate concern of the householder.
That is something which the householder contributes to, by the balanced practise of dharma, artha and karma. And the upward progress is towards that. So, just as, depending on the ashram, there can be a different, there can, now there can be, there are, necessarily, different definitions of success.
Similarly, according to Varna also, there are different definitions of success. We see that, in the qualities of the, according to the four varanas, so when Krishna talks about brahmana, he says, So here he says, shantev. So shantev refers to peacefulness based on tolerance.
And, normally what does it mean if one wants to be peaceful and tolerant? That means, as Prabhupada would say that, even when there is a chance of, when there is a provocative circumstances, one controls oneself. So this is shantev. But just in the next verse, when Krishna is talking about the qualities of kshatriyas, so there he says, युद्धे चाप्य अपदाइनम् तानं इश्वर भावस्चिरक्षात् तन्न सवावजन् So, युद्धे चाप्य अपदाइनम्, that means, normally one should fight it, but even within a fight, when there is reason to be afraid and flee, one should not flee away.
So that means what? Now the violence is the definition of success, for, is a defining quality of a brahmana, but for a kshatriya, the defining quality is confrontation. When it is required, one should confront. Now of course, in the Srishti chapter before that, when Krishna, in verses 1, 2, 3, he described the divine qualities, and then in verse 4 when he described the demoniac qualities.
So there he describes that, तमों दर्पो नानश्च, ख्रोधः पारुष्च नेवज़, so ख्रोधः and पारुष्च, ख्रोधः refers to emotional anger, the emotion of anger, and पारुष्च refers to especially speech, you know, harsh speech. So basically these are involved when one fights. So naturally, next was Arjuna with the question, you know, I am going to fight now, I am fighting, there is violence, there is anger, and the kshatriyas with the harsh speech also, so is my quality demoniac? So this is माशुचः संपदः दैवें, अभिजातो सिपान्तः वासे, which is the next verse, Krishna showed Arjuna, माशुचः, not here Arjuna, संपदः दैवें, your संपदः is दैवें संपदः, why is it दैवें? Because, as I said in this commentary, that for a kshatriya to fight a righteous war is the दैवें का प्रतिकेश, when non-violence is brought at the cost of justice, then that non-violence can be the greatest violence.
Then non-violence, now suppose there is some murderer who is going around killing people, and then the police has the opportunity to shoot him, the police says I am non-violent, and by then, actually justice requires that if there is a serial killer, that serial killer should be punished, if not executed, at least imprisoned. But if the police practise non-violence at the cost of justice, then that will lead to a far greater violence in the future. So, for a kshatriya, violence is required.
So this is a simple example of how the definition of success, according to Varna, will also lead. Now, this is at the, both Varna and Ashrama are at the level of, we can say material levels. Because Varna Ashram itself is not transcendental.
Varna Ashram, when it is used for Krishna’s pleasure, then it serves a transcendental purpose. So there are varying definitions of success within Varna Ashram for different people at different levels. And actually, there are varying definitions of success, even at the spiritual level.
Even at the spiritual level, if we look at the hierarchy described in the Priyad Bhagavatam, when the Gopakumar goes to Ayodhya, goes to Dwarka, so at that time, Gopakumar is not satisfied about that. He feels that something is missing. He wants something higher.
But, the Ayodhya Vasis or the Dwarka Vasis, they think of their worship of the Lord as the highest reality, as the supreme absolute truth. And they are fully contented in that. They are satisfied.
And there is no hate anywhere in Jnanan Goswami’s writings over there, that they are to be considered wrong. Their understanding is in terms of rasa. And in terms of rasa, they are satisfied loving Lord Ram or loving Lord Krishna in their Dwarka form.
They are completely satisfied. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also was not, did not try to impose a hegemony Hegemony is only one authority. This is my last question.
If we claim that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu initiated Tukaram Maharaj, then why didn’t you talk to the Hare Krishna Mandir? Why didn’t you address Ramakrishna Hari? So, actually, first of all, we don’t have to make an argument that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu initiated Tukaram Maharaj. That is, it’s not that we have to try to prove our superiority over everyone else. No, if that argument is practising the path of devotion and is aspiring to pure devotion, that is good.
So, anyway, even if Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has initiated, that does not necessarily mean that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu imposed a hegemony. Now, we see even in his past times, there are two devotees, who were devotees of Lord Ram and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu appreciated their ongoing devotion to Lord Ram. Who are those? Murari Gupta and South Indian Anupama.
Now, in the South Indian tour, we see both things. Now, there was this Vipra who was feeling separation from Lord Ram. He was thinking that Sita has been abducted.
And Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu got a spiritual extract to pacify him. And he was very satisfied. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu glorified his devotion to Lord Ram.
In contrast, we also see that another devotee of Lord Ram was chanting the names of Ram. And then when he met Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he said that, now I am inspired spontaneously to chant the names of Krishna. So, Caitanya Mahaprabhu accommodated the individuality.
And those who were attracted to Krishna worship, he accepted them in Krishna worship. But those who were focused on the worship of Ram, he appreciated them also. So, here also we see, even in the transcendental realm, there can be different definitions of success.
So, our individuality is not to be reduced and rejected. Our individuality has to be purified. And then sublimated.
Sublimated in the name of Krishna’s service. So, most of you probably know that past time, Rupa was told by some book distributors that, they are really good distributors. So, they said that, Rupa, we have drawn certain lines, if we speak them, then the books will get distributed very effectively.
So, can we go around telling these lines. Prabhupada said, probably very great. He said, no.
He said, if the soul is inspired to serve Krishna, then devotional service is performed. So, inspire people to serve Krishna. And they will serve according to their own way.
Bhakti said, Prabhupada said, Krishna consciousness is individual, voluntary and spontaneous. Individual, voluntary and spontaneous. So, he said that we cannot reduce it.
Now, what is always implied from our practical practise of devotional service? In our sadhana stage, we have also multiple definitions of success. One definition of success is of course, which is common for everyone, that we need to have strict sadhana. We chant ashram rounds and we practise our sadhana properly.
Along with that, we also do various services. And in those services, also all of us have our specific goals. Now, depending on the particular project, depending on the particular leader’s vision, or depending on the atmosphere in a particular place, certain services will be glamorised.
And certain services may not be glamorised so much. Now, it is not possible that this can be avoided. Because every project is led by a particular person or particular group of persons.
They are individuals. And actually, their individual vision will be reflected in the project they are leading. But it is not essential that everybody who is in a particular project will naturally be able to share that definition of success.
So, for example, if a particular project has a vision of temple construction. Yes, temple construction is important and all the devotees over there are expected to contribute to some level. But it is not possible that everybody over there can just entirely consider how much funds we have raised, how much temple we have constructed.
That alone is the definition of success. So, over a period of time, as devotees grow, every devotee, we cannot very accurately at our level, determine our value. It happened 1000 years ago itself, when there was a conversation between Nahusha and Yudhishthira Maharaj.
At that time, Yudhishthira tells Nahusha that, Nahusha asked Yudhishthira, how do we know that Nahusha is actually the form of a snake, who has imprisoned Bhima? So, he asked, how do we know the characteristics of a Brahmin? And in response, Yudhishthira says that, it is by qualities. First, is it by birth, is it by activity, is it by qualities? Almost, it is by qualities. And one stands up.
Then, Nahusha says, but this, actually we see these qualities of a Brahmin. He gives a list of qualities. He says, these are present even in people of other worlds.
So then, how do we say that these are the qualities of a Brahmin? Yudhishthira replies, wherever these qualities are present, those people are Brahmins. Then, Nahusha asks, if that is the case, then what is the point of dividing society into one nation? It is just that, we say a person is Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra. So, what is the point of dividing? It is only by qualities.
Because, even at that time, birth was considered important. So, Yudhishthira replies that, originally, when there was no mixing between the castes, then, what would happen is that, both of them, say a Brahmana marries a Brahmani woman, then, the progeny will actually be a Brahmin. But, Yudhishthira Maharaj is saying this 5000 years ago, that at that time also, a lot of mixing will happen.
And because of that, we cannot determine the Varanaja’s family. So, if we see that, even Krishna tells, Krishna here, in this verse, is not just talking about a universal principle, that whenever knowledge is given, that knowledge gets lost after a period of time. That is true.
Krishna is also saying, that at this particular time, this knowledge is lost. Yes, by the power of time, knowledge gets lost. That is something which will happen repeatedly.
Krishna is also saying, that at this particular time, this knowledge has become lost. That means, the society at the time of Mahabharata, is not an entirely accurate reflection of the idealistic society. At that time, it says that, has started happening to some extent.
And beyond that, as the period has progressed, or regressed, whichever way you want to say it. So, what has happened, that has happened further. And Varna cannot be determined very easily.
So, we will have to, to some extent, take individual initiative, and find out, which are the services, which we are good at, which are the services, we can, we feel confident doing, and which we can contribute to our mission. Whereas, one side, of course, we have the services given by authorities, and we do those services. But along with that, it is our spiritual advancement, ultimately, is our responsibility.
Every soul is an individual. As Prabhupada says, take a spoon. Now, all of us have to fly our own thing.
So, we have to find out, how we can move forward in our devotional service. That means, that, according to our Varna, according to our psychophysical nature, we find out, how we can best engage ourselves in devotional service, and move onwards. So, this individuality, which is there, at a current material level, material level means, we have come from certain materialistic backgrounds, certain conditions, and our present individuality is material.
Now, we have to use our present material individuality, in the service of Krishna. And as we use this, gradually, eventually, when we become purified, then, our spiritual individuality will become awakened. Now, is there any intrinsic connect, what is the relationship between our material individuality, and our spiritual individuality? Are they connected in any way, or are they disconnected? Now, if we see, in the Chandarbha, that, Jiva Goswami explains, that there are three kinds of Mahabharatas.
He says that, first are, those who are, Gunaatita and Swarupasita. So, Gunaatita, means those who have gone beyond the modes. Swarupasita means those who have realised, that Swarupa is spiritual.
So, to understand this, our material conditioning is often called, Bhavaroka. It’s a disease. And, we have come to cure ourselves of the disease.
Like, somebody has a very serious disease, say, somebody has got tuberculosis, and it requires long, say, six months treatment. Now, after the six months treatment is taken, and it is successful, then at that time, one becomes, free from the disease. But, one has not yet recovered yet.
So, that’s, after the, clearance of the disease, there is a bit of recuperation. But, one actually gains back the health. So, when we talk about, Gunaatita and Swarupasita, that means the disease is not, that influences the Gunaatita, like the disease, of the ether.
So, one is born beyond the disease, and one has also, Swarupasita, one has also become, spiritually realised. So, this is the complete recovery. Second is, this one is Gunaatita, but one is not Swarupasita.
And, these are also considered to be Mahabharata. So, they have become free, from bodily misidentification, but still, they have not yet realised, their spiritual identity. And, third is, those who are, so, the first are, Gunaatita and Swarupasita, considerably, their both feet are in the spiritual world.
And, they are just waiting, for the body, to end its, And, when the body’s duration ends, they will, they will immediately, be in the spiritual world. Those who are, Gunaatita, both their feet are in the spiritual world. Just the body is in the material world, and it will, exhaust itself.
And, for those who are, Gunaatita, Swarupasita, but not Swarupasita, their one feet is in the material world, one feet is in the spiritual world. And, those who are, not Gunaatita, neither Gunaatita, nor Swarupasita, but those who are still, fixed in Bhakti, they are also considered to be, at one level, Mahabharata. The word Mahabharata, which is used, in the Gaudiya literature, it is a term, something similar to the, it’s an elastic term.
Just like the term, Buddhi Yoga is there. The Buddhi Yoga, that Krishna uses repeatedly, is used three times, in the Bhagavad Gita. First comes in 2.39, then comes 10.10, and then comes in the 18th chapter, 1857.
So, now, when we choose these places, the word Bhakti, Buddhi Yoga comes, the context indicates, the meaning is different. So, when he’s talking, in 2.39, Ishvara says, Buddhi Yoga, is for non-muslims. Buddhi Yoga, is for non-muslims.
Karma, is for non-Muslims. So, here, he’s saying, Buddhi Yoga, what does it, in this context, what does it refer to? It simply refers to, the Yoga, that is practised, with Buddhi. What is the Buddhi? The Buddhi here, is differentiation, between matter and spirit.
Yes? Because that’s what Krishna has talked about previously, in section from 11 to 13. So, there Buddhi Yoga refers to, okay, now understand the difference between matter and spirit, and then act in such a way, Karma Manya Prabhas. So, this Buddhi Yoga, is simply, the difference between matter and spirit.
And it leads only to, liberation from karmic bondage. Now, the second type of Buddhi Yoga, Krishna talks about, in 10.10. एशान्सदर्णिपानः भजितान्पृतिपूर्वकम् वदानि बुद्धियोगम्कम् येनिमानुपयातिते वदानि बुद्धियोगम्कम् This Buddhi Yoga, is not just the difference between matter and spirit. This Buddhi Yoga, is the knowledge that is coming from Krishna.
And that Buddhi Yoga, will enable one, to return back to Krishna. Which is actually, a far greater attainment, than just, becoming free from karmic bondage. So, the word Buddhi Yoga, is like an elastic term.
At one level, it can simply mean, the yoga with knowledge of difference between body and soul. At another level, it is a yoga, by which one can, understand how to return back to Krishna. So similarly, the term Mahabharata, is also elastic.
And it can refer to, transcendentalists, at different levels. So all of them, even if somebody is, neither Mahatita, nor Swaroop Prasanna, but if that person is fixed, in the path of devotion. That is like a patient, who has, found out the right treatment, and has started taking the treatment rigorously.
So it’s only a matter of time, before the recovery will happen. So all three, are considered to be, in one sense, from the structural term, Mahabharata point of view, they are all, exalted devotees. Now why I am talking about this is, we are discussing about, individuality.
So now, there is a spiritual individuality, of every Jiva. Every Jiva has Swaroopa, in his spiritual world. And every soul, is an individual.
And that individual reciprocates, with an individual, in a unique way, with Krishna. So that is, spiritual individuality. Now the spiritual individuality, is largely inaccessible, to us right now.
So right now, we have a material individuality. So, the process of Jnana, involves, rejection and negation, of our material individuality. Now whatever makes us individual, that is to be rejected.
इहन्युवतये जितह सर्गो, येशां साम्मे सतंमण, निर्दोशं समं ब्रह्म, तस्माद् ब्रह्मनिते सितः, So this is, who is Brahmani Sita, who is Jitaha Sargo, ये साम्मे सतंमण, one’s his head, they are nothing equal. So then the idea is, all forms of variety, and individuality, are relegated. So, in the fifth chapter, Krishna is actually progressing, towards Bhakti Yoga.
The verses from 5.17 to 5.26, are talking about, impersonal perfection, impersonal liberation. लबन्ते ग्रह्मनेवान, the word ग्रह्मनेवान comes twice there, in 24 and 25. So it’s liberation within the, Brahman existence, within the Brahma Jyoti.
So, that is one path. In the path of Bhakti Yoga, the material individuality, and the spiritual individuality, although they may not be, intrinsically connected, although they may be, radically different, but still, neither is rejected. Even the material individuality, is utilised in Krishna’s service.
Now, if we look at, the Goswams, for example, if we look at Arunachala as Goswami, now we have, this, this sort of, inter-passing, or, inter-penetration of, the individuality, at this worldly level, and the individuality, at the transcendental level. When, he, in this worldly level, is a Sanyasi, who practically eats nothing. And, that same Sanyasi, who eats practically nothing, is, feasting in the spiritual world, as a Manjiri.
So, this too, if we see, what is the connection? As a Manjiri, the service is quite different. As a Sanyasi, the service is also quite different. The commonality is the consciousness.
In both cases, the consciousness is completely absorbed in Krishna, but, although the consciousness is absorbed in Krishna, the way the service is performed, is different. So, here, he is, Nidraha, Niharika, Dineshika. He is completely absorbed in, conquering all the worldly urges.
Eating very little. But, the same Ramana Goswami, in the spiritual world, as a Manjiri, is, in the festival of Krishna and the Gopis, Krishna feasts, and on the remnants of Krishna, the Gopis feast. And, on the remnants of the Gopis, the Manjiris feast.
So, he also has a feast. Now, that has an effect. And, at this level also.
So, these levels are not entirely separate. But, at the level of, at the level which we can see, they don’t have to be necessarily connected. They don’t have to be necessarily connected.
So, the material individuality, and the spiritual individuality, can be radically different. But, just because the material individuality, is different from the spiritual individuality, does not mean that the material individuality has to be rejected. It also has to be, harmonised, in the path of devotion.
So, we can see, that, this individuality is there, even in the, life of the Acharyas. You see, I’ll just take, three examples of Guru disciples. So, if we look at, Shivaji Goswami, and, Shri Rupa Goswami.
Now, Rupa Goswami, we know that there was a pastime where, Shivaji Goswami debated with Pandava Bhatta, and then he debated with, who was the other? Rupa Narayan. So, Rupa Goswami opposed his debate. Now, that is important, because, he wanted to set a particular example.
But, at the same time, Shivaji Goswami, if you look at his Sandalwadas, his Sandalwadas are full of, it’s, it’s, practically a, Gyan Udtham, where he is, to bring up propositions, which are all, Apasidhanti, and he’s responding to them. Now, Shivaji Goswami, had to, have to navigate a, very tricky situation. What was the tricky situation? That, traditionally, every, Sampradaya, was able to, establish the authority, by writing, a commentary on the, Vedanta Sutra.
No, only when a Sampradaya, has a commentary on the, Vedanta Sutra, then the Sampradaya, is considered to be authorised. Now, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that, Bhagavatam is a natural commentary, on the Vedanta Sutra. So there’s no need, to write another commentary.
Now, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that, but again, what happens is, every authoritative statement, is authoritative, only for those who, accept that authority. So, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is saying that, Bhagavatam has to be a commentary. But those who are, members of other Sampradayas, when they have to challenge, the authority of other Sampradayas, then, we cannot just resort, to the authority of our Sampradaya.
So eventually, later on, after several generations, when there was a challenge, where there was survival, of the technical variation, of the Sampradaya, that’s true. But then, we should go, go with the Bhashya. And if you read, the Govinda Bhashya, it’s the toughest book, that I have read in, maybe my whole life, even to be honest with you also, it’s a very tough book.
When I was talking to Hanuman, I said, I had re-translated it, I edited it, he said, now there are only 15-20 people, who can understand this book. Of course, not many people, need to understand it also. It’s not very natural, because, what the book is like, it’s like saying, there are two brain surgeons, who are discussing, a very complicated, piece of brain surgery.
And they are discussing, should we, should we, remove this aneurysm, by going from the parietal lobe, or the anterior lobe, or through this, or that. Now there is so much, assumption of previous knowledge, that without understanding, the previous knowledge, what is being discussed, becomes incomprehensible. So, what is Vedanta Sutra, basically, there are many important passages, in the open scriptures, which are debated.
So Vedanta Sutra, is trying to resolve, the meanings of those passages. But, the discussion is happening, in such a, such a context, where the controversies, are so well known, that the controversies, don’t even need to be mentioned. So, what happens, which passages, in the open scriptures, is being referred, that is also, a conversation in Vedanta Sutra.
Directly, say Brahma Iti, in this particular, so then, Shankaracharya, Ramanacharya, they have to explain, this Brahma, is talking about, Dread Irony Open Scripture, there is a conversation, between Brahma, and Indra, and that time, Indra says, I am Brahma. So, what does this, Brahma refer to? So, so, Brahma Iti, that’s all, and then, the further discussion, will take place. So, anyway, that’s a different issue, what I am saying, over here, is, that, Balrindra Bhushan, is commenting, on the Gaudiya Bhashya, he doesn’t, refer to, any previous, Gaudiya Acharya, while commenting on it, he refers, only the Shukis, but, he doesn’t refer to, Chakravarthi Paal, he doesn’t refer to, Jiva Goswami, he doesn’t refer to, Rupa Goswami, he only, refers to, the Shukis.
Okay, the Upanishad, this is the Upanishad, what is the meaning of this? Let us look at, some other Upanishad, let us look at, some other Upanishad, let us look here, let us look there, because, that is a book, which is written, for those people, who are not likely, to accept the authority, the Gaudiya Acharyas. So, for them, the authority, which they accept, will have to be used. So, what happens is, that, Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, no need to write, the commentary on, Vijnanam Sutra, but, does mean, the Upanishad, had to write.
And, he had to write, normally we say, whatever we write, we have to refer to, the Upanishad Acharyas, to write. But, we can refer to, the Upanishad Acharyas, when people are going to, accept the authority, of the Upanishad Acharyas. Now, for example, say, if Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, is going to, point out faults, in the theory of evolution, he says, evolution is wrong, because my spiritual master, said it is wrong.
He is going to ask, people himself, who is going to, take care of it. So, he has to provide, pramanas, which people, were scientifically, minded to accept. So, here, in the name of, Shri Sankar Swami, we have to write, the Sandarbhas.
He had to, when he had to, write his books, he had to establish, the philosophical, authority, of the Gaudiya Sankar Nayak. And, when he had to establish, the philosophical, at that time, he faced, the challenge, that, Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, said, that, Bhagavatam, is the natural commentary. So, because, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, was so recent, and, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, shared, Krishna consciousness, in a particular, culture.
So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, how he did was, he, did not, directly, reject, the, prevailing, social norms. So, for example, he, did not, force, like, Haridas Thakur, had entry, in the Jagannath temple. He, even when, he was in Puri, no, he was in Varanasi, he, did not, took, prasad, only at the house, of Brahmanas.
You know, he stayed at the house, whose house, in Tapal Mishra was there, and then there was, in the Shekharacharya. So, he stayed at, whose house, and whose house, in Tapal Mishra? Yes. So, he wanted to stay, in Shekharacharya’s house, he wanted to give, the social knowledge, but Shekharacharya, was not considered, a Brahmana.
So, he stayed at the house, but took prasad, at the house of Tapal Mishra. So, what he did was, he did not, directly, reject the conventional, social norms. So, same way, we see that, Rupa Goswami, did not initiate, any disciples directly, except for, Jigar Goswami, who was, back in the day.
Jigar Goswami also, although he was accepted, as the foremost, glorious scholar, and acharya, at his times, he also did not, initiate any, disciples directly. He had many, learned scholars, who were his, shiksha disciples. But, no one was, his diksha disciple.
Why? Because, he was considered to be, in a line, which had lost, the Brahmana caste. Rupa Goswami, had lost the, Brahmana caste, by, conversion to Islam, temporarily. And, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, did not reject that.
He rejected, that social norm. He, talked about the transcendence, of Vaishnavism. But still, he included, the principle of, he accommodated, the social norms, at that time.
But, of course, as time passed, as generations went, and as, people, more and more people, became aware, of the glory of, Bhakti. Then, more and more people, became acceptable. There is not much, point in just, creating enmity, for enmity’s sake.
We have to present, in a way, that people will accept. So, as the, Bhakti, became understandable, for more and more people. Then, when the next generation, of devotees, Narottam Das Thakur, Srinivas Acharya, and Shravan Patil, they came back to, Bengal.
They were born, in Bengal area. Then, they went to Vrindavan, to get training. And then, Goswami sent them back.
When they came back, then, Narottam Das Thakur, he was not born, in a Brahmana family. Not only, did he initiate, but he initiated, even Brahmins. And, we see that, Narottam Velas, that created, quite a controversy.
But, by his spiritual potency, he was able to, transcend that. And, he was able to, show his potency, to others also. So, what I am saying is, here, the point which I am making is, every Acharya, has his individuality.
And, according to individuality, the Acharya will present, upon time, his circumstances. So, in the case of, Jiva Goswami, he faced the challenge, that, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, Bhagavatam is itself, a natural commentary. And then, he also said, that, Sridhar Swami, is the foremost commentator, on the Bhagavatam.
And, we know that past time, of Vallabha Bhatta, who, whom, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, just touched. Because, he said that, we are opposing, the commentary of, Vallabha, Sridhar, Sridhar Swami. Now, interestingly, if we look at, if we look at, Sridhar Swami’s commentary, on the Bhagavatam, it is true, that, many ways say, Sridhar Swami, gives, in person, Sridhar Swami’s comments.
So, he interprets things, in a, in a, maya way. Why is that? Because, Sridhar Swami, was officially, at that time, affiliated with the, maya example. He was in the, Shankara Sampradaya.
And, when a person, in a particular denomination, one cannot just, refute, the conclusions, of that denomination, while being, in that denomination. So, what, from Sridhar Swami onwards, this happened, increasingly, that, within, within, Advaitavad, Bhakti, was also included. And, Bhakti became, more and more prominent, within Advaitavad.
So, what Sridhar Swami did was, that, he, that, many verses, what mayavadis do it, they interpret, interpret the entire, scripture, as, a mayavadi. So, Sridhar Swami, what he did was, many parts of the scripture, he showed, how they are talking about, Bhakti. And, Bhakti is, not just one aspect of scripture, it is a, conclusion of scripture.
But, other parts, he also said that, these are, actually talking about, impersonal aspect. So, he sort of, did a balancing act, by which, he could introduce, Bhakti, even to the, impersonal aspects. So, now, what was, Vallabha’s, Vallabha Bhatt’s, charge against, Sridhar Swami said, there is no consistency, in his commentary.
This is everything, he interprets, from textual point of view. So, now, that is, in one sense, is true. He has done that.
So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, understood the power, of Sridhar Swami. He said that, you know, what he is doing, is an extraordinarily, difficult task. And, that’s why, he appreciated it.
Now, but what happened, as far as, Sandhant Pitchi, that we established, so, Jiva Goswami, has to give a commitment. So, now, what Jiva Goswami, does is, for example, in Chatur Suttika, he does. There is a section, in the Sankalpa, called Chatur Suttika.
So, what he is doing is, he is taking the first, four sutras, of Vedanta Sutra. Atharva Brahma Jijnana, Janma Desyata, Shastra Yamantva, and Tattu Saman Vaya. So, enquire about Brahma.
Brahma is that, from which everything emanates, and that, can be known only, by Shastra. And, Shastra has to be understood, through reconciliation. Means, that there are different, say if you see, contradicting, there has to be reconciliation.
So, when he gave this, So what Jiva Swami did is, he took these four verses and explained them based on the Bhagavatam. How these verses, now when we say Bhagavatam is an actual commentary, how do we demonstrate that? So he took certain verses of the Bhagavatam and showed how they can be understood based on the Bhagavatam. So now in a Sandarbha, he is giving an elaborate commentary on the Bhagavatam.
Not a verse by verse commentary. But he is giving, in a Tamasandarbha, like appendices of Sandarbhas, where there is commentary on most of the verses. But in Sandarbha, the word Sandarbha basically means a thread.
So, what is he doing in the Bhagavatam? He is taking the verses of the Bhagavatam are like threads. Which he is taking. And with that thread, he is drawing the design which is Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
So he is using Bhagavatam verses to demonstrate the philosophical basis of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. And then he is using Bhagavatam verses also to elaborate the Vedanta Sutra. So this is a three step process.
He shows how Vedanta Sutra is explained through Bhagavatam. And Gaudiya Vaishnavism is based on Bhagavatam. So in this way, he brings about the link between Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Veda Vaishnavism and Vedantic truths.
So what he does in these three steps. So at that time, he has to naturally refer to Sridhar Swami’s commentary. Because Bhagavatam is commented by Sridhar Swami.
So now, what strategy he uses is, he considers Sridhar Swami’s commentary to be the standard commentary. So Tikayati means it is understood. Who is Tikayati? It is Sridhar Swami’s Tikayati.
But whenever Sridhar Swami gives an impersonalistic commentary. So what does Jiva Goswami do? Jiva Goswami says, according to an imaginary interpretation. It is like this.
And then he smashes that interpretation. So what he does is, he offers the respect to Sridhar Swami as a person. And he offers the solutions on his commentary.
But when the Siddhanta is contradicted, then he strongly refutes that. Without referring to the name. So he has to do that.
Because that is his mission. Jiva Goswami is called as Siddhantacharya. So he has to establish the Siddhanta.
And establish Siddhanta in a very rigorous way. So here what we see, Jiva Goswami. Rupa Goswami in one sense.
Just like Jiva Goswami. For him confronting somebody who was just like. He is one generation older.
Vallabh Bhatt. But Jiva Goswami later on, he is confronting Sridhar Swami. You may say, how can you do that? So one Goswami.
We see his mood is entirely on confrontationalist. And the next Goswami, his mood is very confrontationalist. Why is that? Actually everyone is an individual.
And everyone is inspired individually to serve Krishna. And the way they serve Krishna will be different. So similarly we will see.
Now I don’t have time to go elaborately. If you look at Baldev, the Abhishek and Vishwanath Chakravarthy. Both have written commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita.
And now if you look at the commentaries. Baldev’s commentary practically never was Vishwanath Chakravarthy. Now you may wonder, how can a disciple write a commentary on a book without quoting a spiritual master? But their mission had a different mission.
What was his mission? In general, at one level as I said, for a Sampradaya to be considered authentic. The Sampradaya should have a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. But commenting on the Vedanta Sutra alone is not enough.
The commentary is required not just on the Vedanta Sutra but on the Prasthanatraya. That is Vedanta Sutra, Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads. And he follows that tradition.
So in our Sampradaya, Baldev Iyengar was the only person who was committed on all three. And in fact, among the traditional scholars, he is the last person who was committed on all three. Traditional scholars means either from the Mayavada Sampradaya, from the Advaita Sampradaya or from the Vaishya Sampradaya.
After him, Bhaktivinoda is commented on all three. And later, of course, Dr. R. R. Vishwanath is also commented on all three books. But he is not considered to be a traditional scholar.
Although he sort of followed his claims to the Advaita Sampradaya. But his teachings are quite different. So anyway, among the traditional scholars, Baldev Iyengar was the last.
So because Baldev Iyengar had a particular focus. What was his focus? His focus was to comment on the Prasthanatraya in a way that will be inacceptable for people outside the tradition. So those who are outside the tradition will not accept the Advaita Vishwanatraya.
Because he is a Gaudiya Acharya. So then, if he is quoting Gaudiya, he is quoting a Gaudiya Acharya to explain Bhagwan Gita to outsiders, it will not work. So he has to explain it in terms which are intelligible and acceptable for them.
So, this is how there is individuality which has to be accommodated. And similarly, we see this in the case of Sri Raghupath and Bhaktivinoda’s metaphors. So, we know Sri Raghupath, Bhaktivinoda’s metaphor did not comment on the full Bhagwan Gita.
Bhaktivinoda’s metaphor did not even comment on the Bhagwan Gita. He quoted the Bhagwan Gita occasionally, but not much. Sri Raghupath chose the Bhagwan Gita as the founding book for his preaching mission.
And then he commented on the Bhagwan Gita. And then he commented on the Chetan Charitam. Now, on the Chetan Charitam, Bhaktivinoda’s metaphor has written a commentary for Gaudiya Bhashya.
So, now, Prabhupada quotes extensively from the Gaudiya Bhashya, but explicitly he does not refer to it even once. His Bhaktivinoda’s metaphor says this. Bhaktivinoda’s metaphor says this.
But he does not explicitly quote that much. So now, some of Sri Raghupada’s godbrothers were critical of him. They said, you know, why are you in your room and distributing only your books? You distribute your spiritual master’s books.
Now, at one time, Sri Raghupada tried to have a collaboration with his godbrothers. Initially, he asked one of his godbrothers to join him, but they refused. And later on, the school became very big.
Then several of his godbrothers came and said, let us make a committee. And then they said, we will have 15 members. And then he said, you know, there can be 14 members from Gaudiya Bhashya, but Prabhupada will not.
So, Prabhupada said, we will have 15 members, but 14 will be from Islam. He can choose one from one or three. Something like that, they said.
So, what Prabhupada said was that, he was ready for a collaboration, but he said, as long as the books are being distributed, it is a marriage being distributed. The reason for that was, every Acharya writes in a particular context. So, Sri Prabhupada kept the context of his time in mind, and he wrote that.
Now, if Prabhupada had focused only on translating the Sandar Bhashya, or translating Gaudiya Bhashya, Gaudiya Bhashya, or Gaudiya Bhashya, Gaudiya Bhashya, CC commentary, just the translations would not have made the message relevant at all. So, Prabhupada presented Krishna Consciousness in a way that was relevant for people like his students. And of course, he presented principles which are relevant for many, many equations thereafter also.
But, there are many ways, if you see, Prabhupada’s emphasis is significantly different from Bhaktisantra’s emphasis. So, Prabhupada is an individual, Bhaktisantra is an individual. And, you will see that their focus will be different.
Bhaktisantra, for example, went into Radha Poonam wearing a shirt and pant. You know, it was a strict dress. And, it was him who instructed his disciples that when you go abroad, you dress in a way that you respect the western people.
And, they were wearing a shirt and pant. Prabhupada did not do that. When Prabhupada went to the west, he chose the traditional dress.
So, now, these are differences. Prabhupada, he had his own individuality. And, the way it worked out was that when Prabhupada went to the west, at that time, the period of counterculture was there.
And, in the counterculture, the more crazy a person, the more advanced that person is going to be. So, with the whole Dantapurtha outfit, the cultural presentation of Krishna consciousness, which seemed so radically out of the way for the western mainstream culture, just because it was so radically out of the way, just because it was so far out, it was much more appealing to the counterculture. So, every archer will have to use, according to his individuality, strategies for reaching Krishna consciousness.
And, this cannot be stopped with Krishna Prabhupada. Krishna Prabhupada did not come to terminate the Sampradaya. He came to perpetuate the Sampradaya.
So, yes, now we can say that Prabhupada’s position is unvaluable in the Royal Sampradaya. But still, the time, place, circumstance, things will change. And, when things change, presentation also has to be made accordingly.
So, we will have, you know, every generation will have to make the presentation according to one’s individuality. And, this is natural. We see that Krishna Prabhupada, he engaged different disciples in different ways.
He engaged different devotees according to their propensities. So, if we try to have an idea of Krishna Prabhupada as sort of freezing the Sampradaya, then that will make, over a period of time, Krishna consciousness irrelevant. Now, when we talk about faithfulness to a tradition, this is the last one I can put with this, faithfulness to a tradition includes faithfulness to the flexibility of the tradition.
So, we shouldn’t consider a tradition to be something as, something which is very rigid and frigid, that’s what passed down generation after generation. If you look at the tradition, there are presentations which keep changing generation after generation. So, flexibility is also a part of the tradition.
And, that flexibility has to be accommodated. And, only when we are faithful to the flexibility of the tradition also, along with its central core, which is unchangeable, then the tradition will stay like that. And, Srila Prabhupada talks about this also in his proposal.
Repeatedly. He says that, how? Desh-kaal-dibhaav. The twice verse comes in the first Bhishma section and again in the Dhruva section.
So, all time period circumstances, the presentation has to remain. So, there is, every, now, for all of us, at our level, it may not apply so much individually. But, even when we are in Krishna Consciousness, when people ask us questions, how we answer questions, what we emphasise, every teacher we have will have his individuality.
And, according to that individuality, correspondingly, people will be empowered. And, our movement is big enough that different people in different positions, they can find different kinds of people, different kinds of leaders, different kinds of guides, whom they can generate. And, in that way, we expand Krishna Consciousness.
We don’t reject the individuality level, but we accumulate that and purify that. And, ultimately, the spiritual individuality becomes manifest. So, thank you very much.